Change Your Image
hourglass44
Reviews
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
Moral Dilemma
The central question posed by the film/play is whether one can compete for capital in the real world without selling his soul, and what a profound question it is. The director, James Foley, in the DVD commentary describes the film as "animalistic" and states that the characters are merely doing what it takes to survive. "Morality is a secondary issue." This is most certainly true in the world of Glengarry Glen Ross. We see the characters compete for money and the length they will go to to provide for themselves and their families. We do not, however, see the characters in their personal lives.
The one glimpse we get of family is via Levene's reference to his daughter. After Blake leaves the office, the other salesmen leave. Levene stays to make more sales calls. He first, though, calls his family to let them know he will be working late. Not for love of money or career, but for necessity.
Moss schemes, trying to sell his plan to the others in the office to steal the good leads. He suckers one of the salesmen into doing his dirty work for him.
The acting is thrilling; the whodunit aspect is intriguing; the dialogue is intense. The underlying observation is lost on many viewers. What are we willing to do? Will we cross moral boundaries to further our careers? Is this okay, as long as it is only for money - to provide for our families? To what degree do our jobs define us? Can we morally compartmentalize our actions in our careers from our behavior in our private lives?
Not easy questions to answer. Foley was right. We are animals competing to survive in a fierce world. What you are willing to do to that end is up to you.
10/10 JEM
The Spanish Prisoner (1997)
The Certificate Joe signed didn't say "Request for Asylum to Venezuela"!!!
This movie had potential, but needlessly squandered it with gratuitous plot-twists and HUGE, GAPING plot holes. This movie, I must say, along with "The Game" strains credulity beyond even an enthusiastic movie-goers' patience.
For me, the single biggest flaw for which no explanation can be given is when Steve Martin's character has Joe sign a certificate in a supposed "member's only" club to allow Joe entry for lunch. As Joe signs his name, the title at the top of the certificate is initially obscured by the host's fingers. HOWEVER, as the host pulls the certificate away, it clearly reads "CLUB MEMBERSHIP" in English.
Later, when the authorities are questioning Joe about this certificate, they show him the same certificate and ask him if that's his signature on it. Joe says "yes." The officer pulls his fingers away to reveal the title of the very same certificate that Joe signed in the club, but this time it says (in Spanish) "Request for Asylum to Venezuela." There is no explaining away this flaw. This is just lazy movie-making. There are several other bizarre gaffes like this that destroy the movie's credibility as a legitimate thriller.
Watchmen (2009)
Orgasmic for comic book geeks, boring for the rest of humanity
In a way, this movie perfectly encapsulates everything that is a comic book - a pseudo-intellectual and pointless action/adventure for the sexually repressed.
Let me first say that the special effects were dramatic. Rorschach's journey is also mildly interesting.
However, the film's central gravity -- the characters' struggle with the prospect of imminent nuclear war -- is just dated at this point.
Vietnam, Nixon, the Cold War -- give me a break! Who cares?! These themes have been hashed and rehashed a thousand times over, and it's no longer interesting. You are going to have to come up with something a little more inventive to keep the audience entertained. And if you're held hostage to a boring and trite comic book script, then you shouldn't have made the movie to begin with. The story, quite simply, SUCKS.
There is nothing emotionally gripping about seeing a clown-faced Richard Nixon in a bunker somewhere grappling over whether to take the U.S. to Defcon 1 in an imagined parallel universe. There is nothing ominous about the Soviet Union in 2009. Had the movie been released twenty-five years ago, maybe things would be different.
Further, the resolution to this childish fantasy is even less impressive - it's a straightforward rendition of the utilitarian vs. deontological moral debate presented to the audience as if the storyteller was the first person in the history of the earth to have ever contemplated it.
Plus, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't need to see a blue dick waving around on the screen every five minutes.
I would have rated this movie a 3 or 4 for the action sequences alone, but I feel a need to balance out all the hysterical 9s and 10s that are being assigned: 1/10.
A Few Good Men (1992)
Overrated MELODRAMA
I'm sorry to disappoint this movie's multitude of fans, but, even though I like it on the whole, there is NO WAY this film deserves 9, much less 10 stars.
As a law student, I appreciate the attention paid to courtroom tactics and the film's honest depiction of a trial: the preparation, arguments over strategy, trying to put the pieces of your case together, and, most prominently, the lawyer vs. lawyer battle juxtaposed against the other courtroom players.
HOWEVER, the central showdown of the movie is UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS!!!
1) No military attorney would ever behave so recklessly as Cruise did in barking at Col. Jessep, especially with no facts on his side.
All the painstaking effort used to construct an accurate and interesting film here crumbles into typical Hollywood nonsense, and Cruise's change of heart (his decision to accuse Jessep) is all the more ridiculous for it, especially considering how trenchantly he had already spelled out to Moore's character for the entire first half of the film the utter futility and senseless risk of doing so.
2) NO WITNESS WOULD EVER BEHAVE LIKE JESSEP WHILE ON THE STAND. In particular, no Colonel would:
--insult the judge,
--walk off the stand before being dismissed,
--make sarcastic and condescending remarks to the questioning attorney,
--and he certainly WOULD NOT admit to the "Code Red" or turn the witness stand into his own personal soapbox about "men on a wall."
The latter is what really sours me on the film--when Nicholson's character opines with such memorable tripe as:
"Ever put your life in another man's hands, asked him to put his life in yours?"
"We follow orders, son. We follow orders, or people die. It's that simple."
"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns."
"You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall."
Give me a break. This movie is dripping with melodrama.
7/10
JEM
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
This movie defines the Horror genre.
Everyone knows that this and The Exorcist are the two best horror movies of all time.
The sledgehammer to the head and slamming of the door...
The girl thrown onto the meat hook...
The convulsing body in the freezer...
The manic laughter and sadism of Drayton Sawyer as he tricks and ultimately tortures a girl in a canvas bag...
The music, the imagery, the low-budget quality, the marvelous individual performances, and the film's unapologetically insane emotional shock-ride add up to what is the preeminent visceral experience for sheer horror madness.
10/10 JEM
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Good, but overrated
This movie is the flagship for the smug, self-aware sarcasm that pervaded the 1990s. While it is entertaining in a starkly violent way (observe Vincent Vega and Jules's greater concern for the cleanliness of their car after blowing the head off of their backseat passenger or Tarantino's focus on the silly pettiness of Vega's argument with Keitel's character whilst trying to figure out what to do with a dead body), the film is dripping with gauche vanity and retro references to the point that THAT becomes the unspoken star of the film. Of course, this is typical fare for Tarantino, so it should come as no surprise (anyone seen Kill Bill?).
Bruce Willis's vignette is by far the best. Gritty realism (fight fixing, his crummy hotel room and neurotic girlfriend, his car-crash and fight with Marsellus Wallace) is combined with a clever and thoroughly unsuspected twist (stumbling into a homosexual, S&M rape, horror-scenario). This is where Tarantino is at his best; he just becomes a bit misguided when he focuses too much on sarcasm and quirky retro vanity rather than interesting, new storytelling.
7/10 JEM
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
Opulent and passionate rendition
Dracula is humanized in this film in a way that has never quite been achieved before and probably could only have been pulled off by the likes of the great Gary Oldman.
The film is expansive and fully-formed. Anthony Hopkins's Van Helsing is thoroughly entertaining, and Renfield and his doctor/jail-keeper are well played. Even the lesser characters, such as Mina's friend Lucy (Sadie Frost) and her groom (Cary Elwes), are well developed.
The strength of this film is the zeal with which it was made. It is an unapologetic, opulent, head-first dive into the rich tradition of Dracula. It simultaneously holds true to key elements of the original, yet realizes so many of the inchoate fantasies that have emanated from this myth over the decades.
The weakness of the filem is Keanu Reaves. His wooden acting abilities are on full display here, and his British accent is pathetic.
I also have mixed feelings about Winona Ryder's casting. She does an adequate job, but she just seems a bit out of place here. Generally speaking, whenever I can't stop thinking of the actor as I am watching a movie (as opposed to her character and the story itself), I feel distracted, and that's my issue with her. She's not convincing in this role.
Overall, a beautiful, extravagant rendition of a dark and seductive classic.
9/10
JEM